This is the html version of the file http://readyscribepress.com/home_files/DtM-Daniel_5_30-31.pdf.
Google automatically generates html versions of documents as we crawl the
web.
Google automatically generates html versions of documents as we crawl the
web.
| Page 1 |
IDENTIFICATION OF DARIUS THE MEDE
George R. Law
Ready Scribe
Press
Press
Pfafftown, NC
IDENTIFICATION
OF
DARIUS THE
MEDE
MEDE
Copyright © 2010
by Ready Scribe Press
by Ready Scribe Press
All Rights
Reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or
Reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or
transmitted in
any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying
and
any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying
and
recording,
without the prior written permission of the publisher, except as may be
expressly
without the prior written permission of the publisher, except as may be
expressly
permitted by the
1976 Copyright Act. Brief quotations in critical publications or reviews
are
1976 Copyright Act. Brief quotations in critical publications or reviews
are
encouraged.
Otherwise, requests for permission should be addressed to the Publisher:
3655
Otherwise, requests for permission should be addressed to the Publisher:
3655
Transou Rd.,
Suite 706, Pfafftown, NC 27040.
Suite 706, Pfafftown, NC 27040.
This book is the
published version of the 2010 dissertation written by George R. Law in
order
published version of the 2010 dissertation written by George R. Law in
order
to complete his
Ph.D. in O.T. Studies at Piedmont Baptist College and Graduate
School.
Ph.D. in O.T. Studies at Piedmont Baptist College and Graduate
School.
Cover Illustration / by Elizabeth J. Law (© Elizabeth J. Law). The scene suggests a well-known
practice among
Mesopotamian kings: here a Medo-Persian king is engaged in physical
combat
Mesopotamian kings: here a Medo-Persian king is engaged in physical
combat
with a mature
male lion in order to prove his divinely-ordained status and favor.
male lion in order to prove his divinely-ordained status and favor.
Law, George
R.
R.
Identification
of Darius the Mede / by George R. Law.
of Darius the Mede / by George R. Law.
ISBN
978-0-9827-6310-0 (paper binding)
978-0-9827-6310-0 (paper binding)
Printed in the
United Stated of America
United Stated of America
158
Identification of
Darius the Mede
Darius the Mede
Biblical
Portrayal of Cyrus as “Darius the Mede”
Portrayal of Cyrus as “Darius the Mede”
The author of
Daniel had theological reasons for his purposeful portrayal of Cyrus as
“Darius
Daniel had theological reasons for his purposeful portrayal of Cyrus as
“Darius
the Mede.” The
events and actions of each biblical passage referring to Darius the
Mede
events and actions of each biblical passage referring to Darius the
Mede
suggest that he
and Cyrus the Persian are one and the same person. In the book of
Daniel,
and Cyrus the Persian are one and the same person. In the book of
Daniel,
Darius the Mede
is mentioned by the name “Darius” eight times (Dan 5:31; 6:1, 6, 9, 25,
28;
is mentioned by the name “Darius” eight times (Dan 5:31; 6:1, 6, 9, 25,
28;
9:1; 11:1). In
chapter six alone, the author of Daniel uses the word “king” thirty times to
refer
chapter six alone, the author of Daniel uses the word “king” thirty times to
refer
to Darius the
Mede. Cyrus is mentioned three times (Dan 1:21; 6:28;
10:1).
Mede. Cyrus is mentioned three times (Dan 1:21; 6:28;
10:1).
(1906; repr.,
Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2001), 31 (hereafter BDB). Also,
“ןָרְתְשַׁחֲא adj. (?) royal
(fr.
Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2001), 31 (hereafter BDB). Also,
“ןָרְתְשַׁחֲא adj. (?) royal
(fr.
Pers.
Khshatřa, lordship, realm)”; see BDB, 31. Kent notes that
“Khshathrita” was the name of Phraortes, the
Khshatřa, lordship, realm)”; see BDB, 31. Kent notes that
“Khshathrita” was the name of Phraortes, the
Median who
rebelled against Darius the Great and claimed to be a descendant of the Median
king Cyaxares; see
rebelled against Darius the Great and claimed to be a descendant of the Median
king Cyaxares; see
Kent, 180.
Double
Perspectives: Darius, Namely, Cyrus
Perspectives: Darius, Namely, Cyrus
159
The Book of
Daniel is literature—an ancient masterpiece. In each passage
specifically
Daniel is literature—an ancient masterpiece. In each passage
specifically
referring to
Darius the Mede, the author has purposefully supplied information in order
to
Darius the Mede, the author has purposefully supplied information in order
to
reveal to the
audience his ultra identity as “Cyrus the Great.” These hints were not just for
the
audience his ultra identity as “Cyrus the Great.” These hints were not just for
the
original
audience of his book, but are even more important for later generations of
readers who,
audience of his book, but are even more important for later generations of
readers who,
being ignorant
of most of the historical facts, might lose track of the identity of “the
Great”
of most of the historical facts, might lose track of the identity of “the
Great”
conqueror of the
Chaldeans.
Chaldeans.
Daniel
5:30-31
5:30-31
In that night
was Belshazzar the king of the Chaldeans slain. And Darius the Median
took
was Belshazzar the king of the Chaldeans slain. And Darius the Median
took
[ַבּ ְקל] the kingdom, being about threescore and
two years old (Dan 5:30-31).
two years old (Dan 5:30-31).
The night of the
fall of Babylon (539 BC), Belshazzar was
slain and his kingdom was taken by
fall of Babylon (539 BC), Belshazzar was
slain and his kingdom was taken by
Darius the Mede.
Besides the obvious question concerning the identity of Darius the
Mede,
Besides the obvious question concerning the identity of Darius the
Mede,
other questions
arise from the information contained in this verse. In this context, the
first
arise from the information contained in this verse. In this context, the
first
question
concerns the name Darius and its meaning. A second question concerns agency:
who
concerns the name Darius and its meaning. A second question concerns agency:
who
took (received)
the kingdom and who gave the kingdom?
the kingdom and who gave the kingdom?
The first
question concerns the name Darius and its meaning in this context.
Joseph
question concerns the name Darius and its meaning in this context.
Joseph
Wiesehofer and
Azizeh Azodi report the reputable understanding that the name Darius “may
be
Azizeh Azodi report the reputable understanding that the name Darius “may
be
translated as
‘holding the good.’”
‘holding the good.’”
155
This name was
not always a proper name, but was in most
not always a proper name, but was in most
cases an
appellative title, here applied by the author of Daniel to the Medo-Persian
conqueror
appellative title, here applied by the author of Daniel to the Medo-Persian
conqueror
of Babylon.
In 1878 William
Saint Chad Boscawen wrote an article entitled “Babylonian Dated
Saint Chad Boscawen wrote an article entitled “Babylonian Dated
Tablets, and the
Canon of Ptolemy.”
Canon of Ptolemy.”
156
As he worked
through the Ptolemy’s list of ancient
through the Ptolemy’s list of ancient
kings,
157
he discussed the
various Aryan titles used by the Persian rulers and noted the
various Aryan titles used by the Persian rulers and noted the
confusion caused
by these now obscure titles. In the middle of this discussion of titles, as
he
by these now obscure titles. In the middle of this discussion of titles, as
he
worked through
the succession of Babylonian rulers, Boscawen came to ask the quite
logical
the succession of Babylonian rulers, Boscawen came to ask the quite
logical
question: “Now,
if Cyrus conquered Belshazzar, and took Babylon in B.C. 539, is he to be
if Cyrus conquered Belshazzar, and took Babylon in B.C. 539, is he to be
identified with
Darius the Mede?”
Darius the Mede?”
158
Apparently, a
normal reading of the list of kings prompted Boscawen to ask this
normal reading of the list of kings prompted Boscawen to ask this
question. He
follows this question with a review of the work of Ernst von Bunsen
concerning
follows this question with a review of the work of Ernst von Bunsen
concerning
the definition
of “Darius.” Von Bunsen had explained that Darius may be a title which
means
of “Darius.” Von Bunsen had explained that Darius may be a title which
means
“firm holder”
(“ruler” or “king”) and that it could be used as an alternative appellative
for
(“ruler” or “king”) and that it could be used as an alternative appellative
for
Artaxerxes (from
Arya + khshatra = Aryan
warrior/king).
Arya + khshatra = Aryan
warrior/king).
159
Therefore,
Boscawen took von
Boscawen took von
155 Josef Wiesehofer and Azizeh Azodi, Ancient Persia: From 550 BC to 650 AD (London: I B Tauris,
2006),
2006),
30. Also see
The Encyclopedia Americana; A Library of Universal Knowledge (New York:
Encyclopedia
The Encyclopedia Americana; A Library of Universal Knowledge (New York:
Encyclopedia
Americana Corp,
1918), 477.
1918), 477.
156 William Saint Chad Boscawen, “Babylonian Dated Tablets,
and the Canon of Ptolemy” in Transactions
of
and the Canon of Ptolemy” in Transactions
of
the Society
of Biblical Archaeology, vol. 6 (London: Office of Society of Biblical
Archaeology, 1878), 1-78.
of Biblical Archaeology, vol. 6 (London: Office of Society of Biblical
Archaeology, 1878), 1-78.
157 Boscawen did not only synchronize the chronology of the
Babylonian kings, but in this process he
also
Babylonian kings, but in this process he
also
synchronized
some other Babylonian officials including a house (firm) of bankers. The
successive service of three
some other Babylonian officials including a house (firm) of bankers. The
successive service of three
top officials of
this banking house spanned 77 years during the reign of 7 kings (from
Nebuchadnezzar until
this banking house spanned 77 years during the reign of 7 kings (from
Nebuchadnezzar until
Darius the
Great). See F. Hilton Price, “Notes on Ancient bankers and Early Goldsmiths to
the Close of the
Great). See F. Hilton Price, “Notes on Ancient bankers and Early Goldsmiths to
the Close of the
Seventeenth
Century,” in Journal of the Institute of Bankers (London: Waterlow and
Sons, 1880), 110.
Century,” in Journal of the Institute of Bankers (London: Waterlow and
Sons, 1880), 110.
158 Boscawen, “Babylonian Dated Tablets,”
29.
29.
159 Von Bunsen, 61-62.
160
Identification of
Darius the Mede
Darius the Mede
Bunsen’s
definitions and recognized a parallel between the title Artaxerxes, “the great
king of
definitions and recognized a parallel between the title Artaxerxes, “the great
king of
the Aryans,” and
the meaning of Darius the Mede, “the firm holder/ruler of the
Medes.”
the meaning of Darius the Mede, “the firm holder/ruler of the
Medes.”
Concerning the
connection between these titles Boscawen states:
connection between these titles Boscawen states:
Admitting this
use of the titles. . . we may see in the Chaldee [Aramaic] אָי ָד ָמ־שֶׁוָי ְר ָד
use of the titles. . . we may see in the Chaldee [Aramaic] אָי ָד ָמ־שֶׁוָי ְר ָד
Darius the Mede,
only Dariyavush Madai, the king or ruler of the Medes, a fit title
for
only Dariyavush Madai, the king or ruler of the Medes, a fit title
for
Cyrus, the
conqueror of Babylon, supported both by his birth and his rule. (Dan. v,
31.)
conqueror of Babylon, supported both by his birth and his rule. (Dan. v,
31.)
If we take this
conclusion of the use of these apparently royal names in the Books
conclusion of the use of these apparently royal names in the Books
of Daniel and
Ezra, we shall be able to reconcile many apparently contradictory
Ezra, we shall be able to reconcile many apparently contradictory
statements.
160
Boscawen’s use
of Bunsen’s explanation that “Darius” was a
title
of Bunsen’s explanation that “Darius” was a
title
161
in order
to
to
harmonize the
scriptural “Darius the Mede” with Ptolemy’s Canon did not sit well with
other
scriptural “Darius the Mede” with Ptolemy’s Canon did not sit well with
other
scholars.
162
A few years
later, George Rawlinson responded to Boscawen’s theory identifying
later, George Rawlinson responded to Boscawen’s theory identifying
“Darius the
Mede” with Cyrus and called it “extraordinary,” but not in a positive way.
Mede” with Cyrus and called it “extraordinary,” but not in a positive way.
The first
argument Rawlinson posed against this theory is that, according to
his
argument Rawlinson posed against this theory is that, according to
his
thinking, it
would cause Daniel 6:28 to read “So this Daniel prospered in the reign of
Cyrus,
would cause Daniel 6:28 to read “So this Daniel prospered in the reign of
Cyrus,
and in the reign
of Cyrus the Persian.” After a few more comments, he suggested that
to
of Cyrus the Persian.” After a few more comments, he suggested that
to
continue might
“insult our readers’ intelligence.” But he continued anyway, and presented
a
“insult our readers’ intelligence.” But he continued anyway, and presented
a
second argument:
that Dan 5:31 and 9:1 indicate that Darius passively “received the
kingdom”
that Dan 5:31 and 9:1 indicate that Darius passively “received the
kingdom”
(from the hands
of another)—meaning that since the one who received the kingdom was
Darius
of another)—meaning that since the one who received the kingdom was
Darius
the Mede, he
could not be the same as Cyrus the Persian, because Cyrus did not
passively
could not be the same as Cyrus the Persian, because Cyrus did not
passively
receive the
kingdom. Rawlinson drives home the point that Cyrus was a conqueror and
could
kingdom. Rawlinson drives home the point that Cyrus was a conqueror and
could
not be described
as receiving the kingdom: “No one would say of Alexander the Great,
when
as receiving the kingdom: “No one would say of Alexander the Great,
when
he conquered
Darius Codomannus, that he ‘was made king over Persia.’ The expression
implies
Darius Codomannus, that he ‘was made king over Persia.’ The expression
implies
the reception of
a kingly position by one man from the hands of
another.”
a kingly position by one man from the hands of
another.”
163
One of the great
champions of the historicity of Daniel in the early part of the
twentieth
champions of the historicity of Daniel in the early part of the
twentieth
century was
Robert Dick Wilson. Wilson continued Rawlinson’s line of reasoning:
Robert Dick Wilson. Wilson continued Rawlinson’s line of reasoning:
In fact, on the
face of it, the author treats him [Darius] as a real king (Aramaic,
malka)
face of it, the author treats him [Darius] as a real king (Aramaic,
malka)
exactly in the
same manner as he treats Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar, and Cyrus, as
being
same manner as he treats Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar, and Cyrus, as
being
real kings; but
with this noteworthy exception, that Darius the Mede alone is said to
have
with this noteworthy exception, that Darius the Mede alone is said to
have
received the
kingdom and to have been made king.
kingdom and to have been made king.
164
Therefore,
according to this argument, only Gubaru qualifies to be Darius the
Mede
according to this argument, only Gubaru qualifies to be Darius the
Mede
because he
“took” the kingdom and then was “made king” by Cyrus and reigned as his
vassal.
“took” the kingdom and then was “made king” by Cyrus and reigned as his
vassal.
The historical
fact is offered that it was Cyrus along with his generals (including Gubaru)
and
fact is offered that it was Cyrus along with his generals (including Gubaru)
and
160 Boscawen, “Babylonian Dated Tablets,”
29-30.
29-30.
161 Concerning Darius being a title, Hormuzd Rassam, the
archaeologist who discovered the
Nabonidus
archaeologist who discovered the
Nabonidus
Cylinder, reports: “The Greek historian, Syncellus, who lived in the eighth century, calls this Cyrus of Herodotus
and Xenophon
‘Darius Astyages,’ which shows that at his time there must have been some record
in existence
‘Darius Astyages,’ which shows that at his time there must have been some record
in existence
which explained
the various appellations of both Cyrus and Darius.” Hormuzd Rassam,
Babylonian Cities,
the various appellations of both Cyrus and Darius.” Hormuzd Rassam,
Babylonian Cities,
London: E.
Stanford, [1884]), 13.
Stanford, [1884]), 13.
162 Thomas Tyler and others recognized the problem posed by
Daniel 6:28; see Thomas Tyler, “Review”
of
Daniel 6:28; see Thomas Tyler, “Review”
of
Babylonian
Life and History by E. A. Wallis Budge in The Academy (London: J.
Murray, July-Dec 1884), 211.
Life and History by E. A. Wallis Budge in The Academy (London: J.
Murray, July-Dec 1884), 211.
163 George Rawlinson, Egypt and Babylon from Sacred and Profane Sources
(New York: J. B. Alden,
1885),
(New York: J. B. Alden,
1885),
89-90.
164 Robert Dick Wilson, “Darius the Mede,” Princeton Theological Review 20 (2) (1922), 185-186.
Double
Perspectives: Darius, Namely, Cyrus
Perspectives: Darius, Namely, Cyrus
161
his army who
“took” the city of Babylon.
“took” the city of Babylon.
165
But here is the
difference, the crux of Rawlinson’s
difference, the crux of Rawlinson’s
and Wilson’s
argument: both Cyrus and his general Gubaru can be described as
argument: both Cyrus and his general Gubaru can be described as
“taking/receiving”
(Dan 5:31) the kingdom, but only Gubaru, as a vassal king of Cyrus, can
be
(Dan 5:31) the kingdom, but only Gubaru, as a vassal king of Cyrus, can
be
described as
being “made king” (Dan 9:1).
being “made king” (Dan 9:1).
166
In opposition to
this, Rowley and others argue that the phrase “took the kingdom”
can
this, Rowley and others argue that the phrase “took the kingdom”
can
be taken as an
“idiom to express either normal inheritance or inheritance by
sword.”
“idiom to express either normal inheritance or inheritance by
sword.”
167
But
a
a
concept against
Rowley’s argument and somewhat hard to ignore is what Rowley recognizes
as
Rowley’s argument and somewhat hard to ignore is what Rowley recognizes
as
a “unique
expression,” specifically, the occurrence of Hoph‘al (causative-passive tense)
verb
expression,” specifically, the occurrence of Hoph‘al (causative-passive tense)
verb
ַלְמָה in Daniel 9:1; but
Rowley
Rowley
168
and
Montgomery
Montgomery
169
ignored it
anyway.
anyway.
For some the
first reading of the phrase “took the kingdom” might be misleading.
The
first reading of the phrase “took the kingdom” might be misleading.
The
Aramaic word
ַבּ ְקל (Pael / “D” stem) indicates that a
person presents himself “before” or “in
ַבּ ְקל (Pael / “D” stem) indicates that a
person presents himself “before” or “in
front of”
another to “receive” something.
another to “receive” something.
170
This Aramaic
word occurs three times in Daniel
word occurs three times in Daniel
(2:6; 5:31;
7:18). An imperfect of ַבּ ְקל is used in
Dan. 2:6 when Nebuchadnezzar promises to
7:18). An imperfect of ַבּ ְקל is used in
Dan. 2:6 when Nebuchadnezzar promises to
the
interpreters, “ye shall receive of me gifts and rewards.” In Dan 7:18 an
imperfect of ַבּ ְקל is
interpreters, “ye shall receive of me gifts and rewards.” In Dan 7:18 an
imperfect of ַבּ ְקל is
used to describe
the future event when “the saints of the most high shall take the
kingdom.”
the future event when “the saints of the most high shall take the
kingdom.”
Returning to
Daniel 5:31, ַבּ ְקל is used to describe the
apparent result of the victory won by the
Daniel 5:31, ַבּ ְקל is used to describe the
apparent result of the victory won by the
Medo-Persian
army: Darius the Mede “took” the kingdom previously belonging to
the
army: Darius the Mede “took” the kingdom previously belonging to
the
Chaldeans. This
definition of the word ַבּ ְקל “to present
oneself ‘before’ or ‘in front of’ another
definition of the word ַבּ ְקל “to present
oneself ‘before’ or ‘in front of’ another
to ‘receive’
something” implies, even without being a passive, that another person, a giver,
is
something” implies, even without being a passive, that another person, a giver,
is
involved.
But in this
case, the theory that Gubaru (as Darius the Mede) passively received
the
case, the theory that Gubaru (as Darius the Mede) passively received
the
kingdom, the
argument that this is an implied passive, is not even necessary. The context
makes
argument that this is an implied passive, is not even necessary. The context
makes
it clear that
Darius the Mede and the Medo-Persians received the kingdom from someone
else.
Darius the Mede and the Medo-Persians received the kingdom from someone
else.
In human terms,
Darius the Mede gained the kingdom by means of the army’s
successful
Darius the Mede gained the kingdom by means of the army’s
successful
conquest over
the Babylonians. But, the context of this passage includes a decree of God.
By
the Babylonians. But, the context of this passage includes a decree of God.
By
God’s decree,
the kingdom was to be taken away from the Chaldeans and Belshazzar and to
be
the kingdom was to be taken away from the Chaldeans and Belshazzar and to
be
given to the
Medo-Persians, and therefore also to Darius the
Mede:
Medo-Persians, and therefore also to Darius the
Mede:
165 The matter of agency, it might be argued, does not
really matter in the conquering of a nation.
The
really matter in the conquering of a nation.
The
generals and the
army are agents of the king (state). The officers and soldiers comprise of the
army, and they fight
army are agents of the king (state). The officers and soldiers comprise of the
army, and they fight
the battles, and
if successful they take the city. But it is the king, no matter who is credited
with winning the
if successful they take the city. But it is the king, no matter who is credited
with winning the
battles, who
wins the real prize of the war and “takes the
kingdom.”
wins the real prize of the war and “takes the
kingdom.”
166 Rowley lists six scholars (Venema, Pusey, Keil, Wright,
Wilson, and Boutflower) as holding that
these
Wilson, and Boutflower) as holding that
these
phrases
“received the kingdom” (5:31) and “was made king” (9:1) imply that Darius the
Mede’s authority was
“received the kingdom” (5:31) and “was made king” (9:1) imply that Darius the
Mede’s authority was
delegated to
Gubaru by Cyrus; see Rowley, 51. It would be good to add Whitcomb and Shea to
this list of
Gubaru by Cyrus; see Rowley, 51. It would be good to add Whitcomb and Shea to
this list of
excellent
scholars opposed by Rowley.
scholars opposed by Rowley.
167 Rowley, 51-52. Rowley enlists the support of Kliefoth,
Bevan, Charles, Margoliouth, and others to
prove
Bevan, Charles, Margoliouth, and others to
prove
that “the
phrase
phrase
לֵבַּק
א ָתוּכ ְל
ַמ
ַמ
in vi. 1 merely
states that the kingdom passed to Darius, without the slightest
states that the kingdom passed to Darius, without the slightest
indication as to
the manner of the transfer.” Rowley, 51-52.
the manner of the transfer.” Rowley, 51-52.
168 Rowley, 52-53.
169 Montgomery gives permission to change the text: “The
Hof. is found only here, and a pass, is
most
Hof. is found only here, and a pass, is
most
unlikely. We may
point it as Hif., and so ‘reigned,’ after the Syr. use of the Afel.
Misunderstanding of the alien
point it as Hif., and so ‘reigned,’ after the Syr. use of the Afel.
Misunderstanding of the alien
idiom produced a
Hof. in [the Massoretic text]” James A. Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical
Commentary on
Hof. in [the Massoretic text]” James A. Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical
Commentary on
the Book of
Daniel. 1927, repr., New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1959, 360(-361), n.
1.
Daniel. 1927, repr., New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1959, 360(-361), n.
1.
170 BDB, 1110.
BDB indicates that the Hebrew form לַבְק is an Aramaic
loan word; see BDB, 867.
BDB indicates that the Hebrew form לַבְק is an Aramaic
loan word; see BDB, 867.
162
Identification of
Darius the Mede
Darius the Mede
This is the
interpretation of the thing:
interpretation of the thing:
MENE; God has
numbered your kingdom, and finished it.
numbered your kingdom, and finished it.
TEKEL; You are
weighed in the balances, and are found wanting.
weighed in the balances, and are found wanting.
PERES; Your
kingdom is divided, and given to the Medes and Persians.
kingdom is divided, and given to the Medes and Persians.
(Dan.
5:26-28)
5:26-28)
The Aramaic word
ב ַהְי (Peil, be given) in 5:28 is in this
context the counterpart to the word
ב ַהְי (Peil, be given) in 5:28 is in this
context the counterpart to the word
ַבּ ְקל (receive) in 5:31. Therefore, in the context of Daniel
5:31, God is “giving” the kingdom of
5:31, God is “giving” the kingdom of
the Chaldeans to
the Medo-Persians who are “receiving” it. And more specifically, in
Daniel
the Medo-Persians who are “receiving” it. And more specifically, in
Daniel
5:31 the king of
the Medo-Persians is identified as the one who took the kingdom.
the Medo-Persians is identified as the one who took the kingdom.
In a similar
manner, the saints of God will receive the kingdom after dominion is
taken
manner, the saints of God will receive the kingdom after dominion is
taken
from the four
beasts (Dan 7:18) This simultaneous action—God’s giving dominion to
the
beasts (Dan 7:18) This simultaneous action—God’s giving dominion to
the
people who are
receiving it—is consistent with one of the main
themes
receiving it—is consistent with one of the main
themes
171
which is
repeated
repeated
throughout the
book of Daniel: “The most high God has authority to rule in the kingdoms
of
book of Daniel: “The most high God has authority to rule in the kingdoms
of
men and gives
these kingdoms to whomsoever He will” (Dan. 4:32).
these kingdoms to whomsoever He will” (Dan. 4:32).
This theme of
God’s authority and active rule over the kingdoms of men is mentioned
at
God’s authority and active rule over the kingdoms of men is mentioned
at
least fifteen
times in the book of Daniel (listed below). In fact, the first two verses of the
book
times in the book of Daniel (listed below). In fact, the first two verses of the
book
(Dan 1:1-2) set
the stage for this theme and its variations, which are woven throughout
Daniel’s
the stage for this theme and its variations, which are woven throughout
Daniel’s
narratives. The
following is a list of this theme’s fifteen specific occurrences throughout
the
following is a list of this theme’s fifteen specific occurrences throughout
the
book of
Daniel:
Daniel:
1. God gives
Jerusalem to Nebuchadnezzar:
Jerusalem to Nebuchadnezzar:
“Nebuchadnezzar
king of Babylon came unto Jerusalem, and besieged it. And the
king of Babylon came unto Jerusalem, and besieged it. And the
Lord gave
Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand” (Dan 1:1-2).
Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand” (Dan 1:1-2).
2. God takes
kingdoms away from one king and gives the kingdom to another king:
kingdoms away from one king and gives the kingdom to another king:
“He removes
kings, and sets up kings” (Dan 2:21).
kings, and sets up kings” (Dan 2:21).
3. God gave a
great dominion to Nebuchadnezzar:
great dominion to Nebuchadnezzar:
“You, O king,
are a king of kings: for the God of heaven hath given you a
kingdom,
are a king of kings: for the God of heaven hath given you a
kingdom,
power, and
strength, and glory” (Dan 2:37, 47).
strength, and glory” (Dan 2:37, 47).
4. God’s
authority and power is greater than Nebuchadnezzar’s:
authority and power is greater than Nebuchadnezzar’s:
“Our God whom we
serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he
serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he
will deliver us
out of your hand, O king. . . . God. . . delivered his servants that
trusted
out of your hand, O king. . . . God. . . delivered his servants that
trusted
in him, and have
changed the king's word (Dan 3:17, 28).
changed the king's word (Dan 3:17, 28).
5. God gives
kingdoms to the basest of men:
kingdoms to the basest of men:
“This matter is
by the decree of the watchers, and the demand by the word of the
holy
by the decree of the watchers, and the demand by the word of the
holy
ones: to the
intent that the living may know that the most High rules in the kingdom
of
intent that the living may know that the most High rules in the kingdom
of
men, and gives
it to whomsoever he will, and sets up over it the basest of men”
(Dan
it to whomsoever he will, and sets up over it the basest of men”
(Dan
4:17).
6. God preserves
the kingdom for Nebuchadnezzar during his illness:
the kingdom for Nebuchadnezzar during his illness:
“And whereas
they commanded to leave the stump of the tree roots; your kingdom
they commanded to leave the stump of the tree roots; your kingdom
shall be sure
unto you, after that you shall have known that the heavens do rule”
(Dan
unto you, after that you shall have known that the heavens do rule”
(Dan
4:26).
171 This theme is a focus of the chiastic structure (see p.
12) of the Aramaic portion of the book of Daniel.
12) of the Aramaic portion of the book of Daniel.
Double
Perspectives: Darius, Namely, Cyrus
Perspectives: Darius, Namely, Cyrus
163
7. God takes the
kingdom away from Nebuchadnezzar:
kingdom away from Nebuchadnezzar:
“There fell a
voice from heaven, saying, ‘O king Nebuchadnezzar, to you it is
spoken;
voice from heaven, saying, ‘O king Nebuchadnezzar, to you it is
spoken;
The kingdom is
departed from you’” (Dan 4:31).
departed from you’” (Dan 4:31).
8. God returned
the glory of the kingdom to Nebuchadnezzar:
the glory of the kingdom to Nebuchadnezzar:
“I blessed the
most High, and I praised and honoured him that liveth for ever,
whose
most High, and I praised and honoured him that liveth for ever,
whose
dominion is an
everlasting dominion. . . . At the same time my reason returned
unto
everlasting dominion. . . . At the same time my reason returned
unto
me; and for the
glory of my kingdom, mine honour and brightness returned unto me”
glory of my kingdom, mine honour and brightness returned unto me”
(Dan
4:34-36).
4:34-36).
9. God takes
away the kingdom from Belshazzar:
away the kingdom from Belshazzar:
“Your kingdom is
divided, and given to the Medes and Persians” (Dan 5:28).
divided, and given to the Medes and Persians” (Dan 5:28).
10. God’s
kingdom shall not be destroyed and His dominion reaches even into the
Lions’
kingdom shall not be destroyed and His dominion reaches even into the
Lions’
Den:
“He is the
living God, and stedfast for ever, and his kingdom that which shall not
be
living God, and stedfast for ever, and his kingdom that which shall not
be
destroyed, and
his dominion shall be even unto the end. He delivers and rescues,
and
his dominion shall be even unto the end. He delivers and rescues,
and
he works signs
and wonders in heaven and in earth, who hath delivered Daniel from
and wonders in heaven and in earth, who hath delivered Daniel from
the power of the
lions” (Dan 6:26-27).
lions” (Dan 6:26-27).
11. God gives
dominion to the beast(s) (which represent kingdoms):
dominion to the beast(s) (which represent kingdoms):
“And dominion
was given to it (the beast)” (Dan 7:1-8).
was given to it (the beast)” (Dan 7:1-8).
12. God gives an
everlasting dominion to the Son of Man:
everlasting dominion to the Son of Man:
“And there was
given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people,
given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people,
nations, and
languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting
dominion,
languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting
dominion,
which shall not
pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed” (Dan
pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed” (Dan
7:14).
13. God shall
give dominion and judgment to His saints:
give dominion and judgment to His saints:
“But the saints
of the most High shall take the kingdom, and possess the kingdom
for
of the most High shall take the kingdom, and possess the kingdom
for
ever, even for
ever and ever. . . . Until the Ancient of days came, and judgment
was
ever and ever. . . . Until the Ancient of days came, and judgment
was
given to the
saints of the most High; and the time came that the saints possessed
the
saints of the most High; and the time came that the saints possessed
the
kingdom” (Dan
7:18, 22).
7:18, 22).
14. God shall
take away the dominion of the one horn arising out of the ten:
take away the dominion of the one horn arising out of the ten:
“But the
judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and
to
judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and
to
destroy it unto
the end” (Dan 7:26).
the end” (Dan 7:26).
15. God will
give the dominion of all the kingdoms to His saints:
give the dominion of all the kingdoms to His saints:
“And the kingdom
and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole
and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole
heaven, shall be
given to the people of the saints of the most High, whose kingdom
is
given to the people of the saints of the most High, whose kingdom
is
an everlasting
kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him” (Dan 7:27).
kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him” (Dan 7:27).
To assign the
action of the “giving” of the Chaldean kingdom to a human agent
instead
action of the “giving” of the Chaldean kingdom to a human agent
instead
of God would be
to miss a major point of the book. There is no denial here of the
involvement
to miss a major point of the book. There is no denial here of the
involvement
and the
responsibility of human activities, such as Nebuchadnezzar’s army coming against
the
responsibility of human activities, such as Nebuchadnezzar’s army coming against
the
city of
Jerusalem (Dan 1:1) or of Cyrus’ army coming against the city of Babylon (Dan
5:31).
Jerusalem (Dan 1:1) or of Cyrus’ army coming against the city of Babylon (Dan
5:31).
The book of
Daniel expressly shows that human activity is used by God, sometimes in
co-
Daniel expressly shows that human activity is used by God, sometimes in
co-
ordination with
heavenly agents (Dan 6:22; 10:20-11:1), to accomplish His purposes. Still,
the
heavenly agents (Dan 6:22; 10:20-11:1), to accomplish His purposes. Still,
the
net result is
according to what God wills: “He gives the kingdom to whomsoever He will.”
according to what God wills: “He gives the kingdom to whomsoever He will.”
164
Identification of
Darius the Mede
Darius the Mede
God’s decree
took the kingdom from Belshazzar and gave it to Darius the Mede, who
actively
took the kingdom from Belshazzar and gave it to Darius the Mede, who
actively
received the
kingdom.
kingdom.
In the
introduction of Darius the Mede, there is an incidental hint, the
approximate
introduction of Darius the Mede, there is an incidental hint, the
approximate
sixty-two-year-old
age of Darius. The identification method employed in chapter four of
this
age of Darius. The identification method employed in chapter four of
this
dissertation
shows the value of knowing someone’s age and using it as an identifying
mark.
shows the value of knowing someone’s age and using it as an identifying
mark.
The matching of
the age of Cyrus the Great
the age of Cyrus the Great
172
with the age of
Darius the Mede was a
Darius the Mede was a
significant
qualifying characteristic which helped to identify Cyrus as Darius the Mede,
but
qualifying characteristic which helped to identify Cyrus as Darius the Mede,
but
there might be
another reason why the author provided this hint.
another reason why the author provided this hint.
This number,
which is otherwise extraneous information, is specific to three things
in
which is otherwise extraneous information, is specific to three things
in
the book of
Daniel: 1) Darius, 2) Cyrus, and 3) the prophecy of the weeks. The author might
be
Daniel: 1) Darius, 2) Cyrus, and 3) the prophecy of the weeks. The author might
be
using the
approximate age of Darius, sixty-two (62), to emphasize the prophecy of the
seventy
approximate age of Darius, sixty-two (62), to emphasize the prophecy of the
seventy
weeks determined
upon Israel and Jerusalem (Dan 9:24).
upon Israel and Jerusalem (Dan 9:24).
This prophecy
of the seventy (70) weeks is divided into three segments: seven (7)
of the seventy (70) weeks is divided into three segments: seven (7)
weeks +
sixty-two (62) weeks + one (1) week (Dan 9:25-26). Cyrus, the 62-year-old
conqueror,
sixty-two (62) weeks + one (1) week (Dan 9:25-26). Cyrus, the 62-year-old
conqueror,
gave the
commandment granting the Jews permission to return to the land and to rebuild
their
commandment granting the Jews permission to return to the land and to rebuild
their
temple in
Jerusalem. In Daniel 9:25, after a commandment is given to initiate the
restoration of
Jerusalem. In Daniel 9:25, after a commandment is given to initiate the
restoration of
Jerusalem and
its temple, and after the conclusion of the prophesied 62 weeks, that
temple,
its temple, and after the conclusion of the prophesied 62 weeks, that
temple,
which Cyrus
commanded to rebuild, is to be destroyed. The link between the
62-year-old
commanded to rebuild, is to be destroyed. The link between the
62-year-old
Darius the Mede
and the 62-year-old Cyrus the Great reinforces this prophecy concerning
the
and the 62-year-old Cyrus the Great reinforces this prophecy concerning
the
62 weeks which
is to pass before the new Temple will be destroyed.
is to pass before the new Temple will be destroyed.
Daniel
6
6
The description
of Darius the Mede throughout the sixth chapter of Daniel contains many
hints
of Darius the Mede throughout the sixth chapter of Daniel contains many
hints
to ensure that
Daniel’s readers will catch his identity. One of the questions usually
asked
Daniel’s readers will catch his identity. One of the questions usually
asked
concerning
Daniel’s description of Darius the Mede is the following: “Why was Daniel
not
Daniel’s description of Darius the Mede is the following: “Why was Daniel
not
more explicit
concerning his identity?” But there are some who would argue that Daniel
could
concerning his identity?” But there are some who would argue that Daniel
could
not be more
explicit in his description of this supreme ruler, other than just to come out
and
explicit in his description of this supreme ruler, other than just to come out
and
state his
name—which in fact, he did in the final verse of this chapter. Still, this does
not fully
name—which in fact, he did in the final verse of this chapter. Still, this does
not fully
answer why
Daniel was not immediately explicit. But first, the specific details of
Daniel’s
Daniel was not immediately explicit. But first, the specific details of
Daniel’s
description of
King Darius in Daniel 6 should be reviewed.
King Darius in Daniel 6 should be reviewed.
172 Muhammad Dandamaev provides a summary of Cyrus’ birth,
reign, and death: “Cicero (De
Divinatione
reign, and death: “Cicero (De
Divinatione
1.23.46),
following the Greek historian Dinon, reported that Cyrus became king when he was
forty years old and
following the Greek historian Dinon, reported that Cyrus became king when he was
forty years old and
then ruled for
thirty years. As Cyrus died in 530 b.c.e., he must have been born around 600
b.c.e. and must have
thirty years. As Cyrus died in 530 b.c.e., he must have been born around 600
b.c.e. and must have
succeeded his
father as king of Persia in 559 b.c.e. (cf. Stronach, p. 286)”; see Dandamaev,
“Cyrus II.”
father as king of Persia in 559 b.c.e. (cf. Stronach, p. 286)”; see Dandamaev,
“Cyrus II.”
(Encyclopaedia
Iranica,
iranica.com,
2009)
available
on
the
internet
at
http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/unicode/v6f5/v6f5a026.html.
Kuhrt reports that the only other
Kuhrt reports that the only other
chronologically
fixed data for Cyrus (aside from his death) are contained in the Babylonian
Chronicle.... It records
fixed data for Cyrus (aside from his death) are contained in the Babylonian
Chronicle.... It records
Cyrus’ defeat
of the Median ruler, Astyages, in 550, and Cyrus’ conquest of Babylonia in 539”;
see Kuhrt, 48.
of the Median ruler, Astyages, in 550, and Cyrus’ conquest of Babylonia in 539”;
see Kuhrt, 48.
Herodotus,
Ctesias, and Dinon all agree that Cyrus died having reigned approximately thirty
years. Dinon is the
Ctesias, and Dinon all agree that Cyrus died having reigned approximately thirty
years. Dinon is the
only source to
report Cyrus’ age at death: “nam ad septuagesimum pervenit, cum quadraginta
natus annos regnare
report Cyrus’ age at death: “nam ad septuagesimum pervenit, cum quadraginta
natus annos regnare
coepisset”;
(trans. “for he lived to his seventieth year, having begun to reign at forty”).
(Dinon quoted by Cicero in
(trans. “for he lived to his seventieth year, having begun to reign at forty”).
(Dinon quoted by Cicero in
De
Divinatione I.xxiii (46)). The Latin text is available in De Divinatione
by Cicero published in the Loeb’s
Divinatione I.xxiii (46)). The Latin text is available in De Divinatione
by Cicero published in the Loeb’s
Classical
Library, 1923. The English translation is available on the internet
at
Library, 1923. The English translation is available on the internet
at
....
No comments:
Post a Comment